Case C-536/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Tiketa’ UAB v M. Š. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/83/EU — Consumer contracts — Concept of ‘trader’ — Obligation to provide information in respect of distance contracts — Requirement that the necessary information be provided in plain and intelligible language and on a durable medium)
Date: 2022-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract terms, distance selling, trade intermediary








C_2022165EN.01001601.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/16






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Tiketa’ UAB v M. Š.
(Case C-536/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/83/EU - Consumer contracts - Concept of ‘trader’ - Obligation to provide information in respect of distance contracts - Requirement that the necessary information be provided in plain and intelligible language and on a durable medium)
(2022/C 165/18)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law:‘Tiketa’ UAB

Respondent on a point of law: M. Š.

Other party in the appeal on a point of law:‘Baltic Music’ VšĮ

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that not only a natural or legal person who is acting for purposes relating to his own trade, business, craft or profession in relation to contracts covered by that directive, but also a natural or legal person who is acting as an intermediary, in the name of or on behalf of that person, is a ‘trader’ within the meaning of that provision, since that intermediary and the principal trader may both be classified as ‘traders’ for the purposes of that provision, without there being any need to establish the existence of a twofold provision of services;










2.


Article 6(1) and (5) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as not precluding the information referred to in Article 6(1) from being provided to the consumer, prior to the conclusion of the contract, only in the general terms and conditions for the provision of services on the intermediary’s website, which that consumer actively accepts by ticking the box provided for that purpose, provided that that information is brought to the consumer’s attention in a clear and comprehensible manner. However, such a means of providing information cannot act as a substitute for providing the consumer with the confirmation of the contract on a durable medium, within the meaning of Article 8(7) of that directive, since this does not prevent that information from forming an integral part of the distance or off-premises contract.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.